That's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everybody could sit in the section assigned to their race.<quoted text>
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Sorry, LOLSER, the "opposite sex" is not the same for men and women, so men and women are not being treated equally.
They are wrong. And I've shown that.We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 ) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced.[...]
And by restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non whites could marry, because some non whites couldn't marry whites.The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.
In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites)
for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way." Hernandez v Robles
Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't.
Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't.
Men tend to make more money, so men are disadvantaged when it comes to choosing who to marry.